Discoveroids Say Science Is Totally Corrupt

This one is amazing. We found it at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, titled “Trust the Scientists”? The World Catches Up with Intelligent Design. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Remember the March for Science? It seems so quaint now.

That was four years ago, and we remember it. The Discoveroids wanted to participate, but they weren’t allowed to. It was quite amusing, and we wrote The Discoveroids and the March for Science. The Discoveroids are still angry about it. Klinghoffer says:

Regarding the trustworthiness of scientists, proponents of intelligent design have been urging thoughtful skepticism for decades. It is interesting to watch the rest of the world as it catches up with us

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What’s he talking about? He explains:

Reporter Sharyl Attkisson notes when this unraveling began.

Klinghoffer links to what looks like a weird article at that woman’s blog. Almost everything else in his post consists of quoting her. Here’s a little bit of it:

In my 2017 investigation [Link omitted!] into “Fake Science,” Dr. Marcia Angell, the first woman to serve as Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, explained why she says a large percentage of published studies are not to be believed.

Why didn’t we ever hear about this? We looked up Marcia Angell in Wikipedia. They discuss her editorship of the New England Journal of Medicine, but although she has criticized pharmaceutical companies for their pricing, there’s no mention of any “fake science” disclosures. This is very strange, but let’s stay with Klinghoffer’s quote of the Attkisson woman’s article about “fake science.”

As that quote continues, Attkisson tells about the editor of a UK magazine who wrote:

“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue; science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

Ooooooooooooh! Some dude says science has taken a turn towards darkness. The Attkisson quote ends with this:

These scientists are joined by many others who say that industry and special interests have co-opted the research process, academic institutions, federal agencies and public health groups to such a degree that it can be impossible to get unconflicted, accurate scientific information. At the very least, it’s difficult to know what can be trusted and what should not.

Shocking. Absolutely shocking. Klinghoffer finishes his powerful post by saying:

It’s more important than ever to know — and more widely acknowledged now than, perhaps, ever — that there is no substitute for independent thinking about science. That’s whether you hold a science PhD or not.

Right. And if you want some really independent thinking about science, you can always get if from the Discoveroids.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

13 responses to “Discoveroids Say Science Is Totally Corrupt

  1. chris schilling

    Remember when creationists still thought evolution would be dethroned? It seems so quaint now.

  2. Dave Luckett

    Uh-huh. “The World”, in Klunkheaver’s lexicon, consists of an opinion found on the blog of someone nobody’s ever heard of. Yeah, sure.

  3. We can trust the Discovery Institute for fertilizer. Very trustworthy for fertilizer.

  4. It’s Q-Anon (Queers-Anonymous) at work here. Anti-science, anti-vaccine, etc. all at work behind these lies perpetuated by science. Yah, down with science. It’s “Nightfall” as Asimov called it. The earth’s inhabitants will all go crazy with all the false info they’re getting.

  5. “A lot of what is published is incorrect.”
    This is the opening sentence of an article in the April 11, 2015 edition of “The Lancet” (link: Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?). The author is Richard Horton (the editor-in-chief) who is a highly regarded person (and doctor).

  6. Derek Freyberg

    Marcia Angell had a point back then (and maybe even now): there was a time when drug companies (ooh, the evil!) could decide how to conduct a trial so that it was most likely to show the benefit of their new drug (TND); and not publish if the trial didn’t show the expected benefit of TND.
    And it’s still true that drug companies can decide to conduct a trial so that it is most likely to show the benefit of TND, provided that they convince the FDA, and the institutions at which the trial is to be conducted, that the trial has “clinical equipoise”, some sort of fundamental fairness.
    And it’s still true that drug companies don’t need to publish the results of their clinical trials (more or less); but they do have to publish the fact that they conducted the trial – that’s what is all about.
    And yes, some results are not replicable.
    But SO WHAT? – does this prove the Discorrhoids actually have some meaning to their existence other than to pull a salary from (the late) Mr. Ahmanson. Hell no!

  7. I am reminded of an old saying of the marketing profession;
    Half of the money spent on advertising is wasted.
    The only thing is that we don’t know what that half is.

  8. Dave Luckett

    TomS, that is also an aphorism in the print publishing business. Publishing houses change hands rather often. What usually happens is that they are acquired by a conglomerate, often when the editing team performs well, making the operation profitable and hence attractive. The acquirer then sends in ‘experts’ or a ‘management consultancy’ to evaluate the business, and invariably finds that 80% of the profits are made by 20% of the titles published. This is absolutely standard for the industry.

    Hence, their recommendation is always: “Publish fewer titles, and only the most marketable ones”. So, title acquisition is taken out of the hands of the previous editorial team – after all, they were making wrong decisions about 80% of the time.

    The new acquisition team puts the evaluation process on a rational basis. They have marketing surveys done, product placement, consumer polls, whatever, – the methods they learned in business management school. These of course cost money and take time – years, sometimes – so the house gets a name for slow responses, and it starts losing good titles to houses that move faster.

    But the crunch comes when the predictions are no better, and usually worse, than the previous acquisition editor’s. 80-20 becomes 90-10, and the business becomes less profitable. Meanwhile, the previous team, having been informed that their judgement is suspect, have either gone to pastures new, or are just going through the motions with material they don’t really believe in.

    This is not invariable or inevitable. Sometimes the new management sees the problem, realises that the only solution – and a partial one, at that – is to make no such changes, to back the team they have and to find sharp young editors – real editors, with a passion for fiction (or whatever they publish) and a track record of making good acquisition decisions. Not business management graduates who think books are just another commodity.

    But still, there’s an awful lot of “churn” in publishing, and the above is one cause of it.

  9. “Scientists don’t know anything!” proclaims man who constantly relies on the agricultural processes developed by scientists, computer technology developed by scientists, transportation technology developed by scientists, medicine developed by scientists, etc.

  10. Yet another example of creationism as conspiracy theory

  11. To ALL deniers of science…until you throw out your cell phones, modern cars, don’t use anything but walking or donkeys, no use of planes, no TV, no hospitals-just pray etc you are all LIARs and full of …

  12. Ever hear of the Theory of Flight?
    Flight is just a theory.
    The only reason that planes can break the Law of Gravity is that they are designed.
    Which shows that birds are Intelligently Designed.

  13. (Just stashing this here for the next Free Fire Zone)

    “I’m going to try connecting things that don’t at first seem related. They are the fight over a commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection; the disproportional number of covid deaths in states run by Republican governors; this week’s shooting massacre in San Jose, Calif., and every other one like it . . .

    “All have in common the political concept that God divided the world between the elected and the unelected, that is, between His chosen and everyone else deserving of eternal damnation.”